[Moose-dev] Re: MooseChef scoping should not exclude self loops

On 29 juil. 2011, at 11:38, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Indeed, I also looked into the possibility of having a > MooseObjectQueryResult>>withoutSelfLoops. It would be cool to > have > it like that, but it does not seem possible currently because we > do > not have enough context. > > I only have the receiver, and I do not know what kind of scoping > was used. I guess that with scoping information, it would be > enough, right? The basic scope is the one of the receiver, which you can obtain with #yourScope. Then when sending an #atSomethingScope message, my guess is that the MooseObjectQueryResult should also save the scope so that it is available for example in #withoutSelfLoops

> > Any ideas? > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > On 29 Jul 2011, at 11:26, Simon Denier wrote: > >> >> On 28 juil. 2011, at 23:10, Nicolas Anquetil wrote: >> >>> I want to reimplement software engineering metrics using moose >>> chef instead of moose cook. >>> >>> for example to compute cohesion I would do (among other >>> things): >>> self queryAllOutgoingDependencies atClassScope >>> withinMyPackage >>> >>> i.e. : >>> 1- from a package (self) >>> 2- get all its "outgoingdependencies" (outgoing does not mean >>> going outside the package, this includes dependencies within th >>> package) >>> 3- put that at class level (because we are interested in >>> dependencies between classes within or outside the package) >>> 4- and filter those that are inside self >> >> >> OK, I see what you mean. When I refactored Cook into MooseChef, >> there was lots of small decisions about the "best" default >> choice >> i.e., the least surprising choice. Unfortunately I also realized >> that such choices do not work in all cases. The underlying >> principle is that default choices in MooseChef works best >> bottom-up: that is, starting from the low-level entities >> (methods, >> classes) up to enclosing entities (classes, packages). >> Conversely, >> you have to be careful when working top-down and that's because >> of >> the self loops exclusion. >> >> >> So my proposed solution for this is to work "bottom-up": instead >> of collecting dependencies directly at package level, you start >> to >> work at class level. >> >> aPackage classes collect: [ :class | class >> queryAllOutgoingDependencies atClassScope withinMyPackage ] >> >> But again, this might or might not be the expected result >> because >> you exclude self loops at class scope then (i.e. no ClassA -> >> ClassA relation, this might or might not be what you want). If >> this is not what you want, you might go to the level of methods, >> and then again self loops are exclude but at method level (i.e. >> recursive calls are excluded). >> >> >> I really don't know what's the best: >> - keep the current semantic which plays nicely bottom-up >> (however, >> the above case shows it's not really consistent with "least >> surprise" :) ) >> - or be less intelligent and let the user chooses himself >> whether >> or not he wants self loops as proposed by Doru. This way >> MooseChef >> would be more adaptable to any case. >> >> I am not very happy with the proposed API enhancements but it >> can >> be a temporary solution. I would rather make #withoutSelfLoops >> works with MooseObjectQueryResult (currently, #withoutSelfLoops >> works only with primitive queries). Then I could write (for >> example): >> >> aPackage queryAllOutgoingDependencies atClassScope >> withoutSelfLoops >> >> >> >>> >>> I want the result to be all dependencies from classes within >>> package self going to classes within package self. >>> >>> but (from the moose chef documentation): >>> >>> "The scope operators exclude self loops by default (this was >>> also >>> the default in Moose Cook). That is, the query result will not >>> contain the receiver scope itself: you will not get something >>> like PackageX -> PackageX in the result (the reason for this is >>> that in general algorithms do not like graphs with self >>> loops)." >>> >>> So: >>> - should we change that default? >>> - should I change my query? >>> >>> I believe if there is a method to exclude self loops >>> (withoutSelfLoop), it should not be done automatically in some >>> case let those who want it do it themselves. >>> >>> What say you? >>> >>> nicolas >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch >>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> -- >> Simon Denier >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "To lead is not to demand things, it is to make them happen." > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev -- Simon Denier _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev